"The Chief Minister and Minister for Home Affairs have emerged from this saga with no disciplinary case, no Chief Officer, a pending report from a QC likely to be critical of the Island’s Government, and a bill for over a million pounds. They are not well placed to criticise the actions of others" Deputy Bob Hill.............................................
Trevor Pitmans Blog.......................................BALDTRUTH"

Sunday, September 2, 2012

VERITA TOR'S - WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?

THE VERITA TERMS OF REFERENCE "TOR'S"

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE CAUSING THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS "COM" SO MUCH PROBLEMS?

LET US FIRST LOOK AT THIS PART OF THE VERITA TOR'S

This is an essential part of the TOR'S.

What was done in response to concerns of abuse?

. Consider the experiences of those witness who suffered abuse or believe that they suffered abuse and hear staff who worked in these services.

. Identify how and by what means concerns about abuse were raised and how and to whom they were reported. Did systems exist to allow children and others to raise concerns and safeguard their wellbeing?

. Consider how the education, health and social services department dealt with concerns about alleged abuse, what action they took and whether they were in line with the policies and procedures of the day.

. Establish, where abuse was suspected, whether it was reported to the appropriate bodies including the States of Jersey Police and what action was taken by persons or entities including the police and whether this was in line with policies and procedures of the day

. Determine whether the concerns of 2007 were sufficiant to justify the States of Jersey Police setting in train Operation Rectangle

. Determine whether, on reviewing files submitted by the States of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether, on reviewing files submitted by the states of Jersey Police for consideration as to whether or not a prosecution should be brought, those responsible for deciding on which cases to prosecute took a consistent and impartial approach and whether the process was free from any political interference at any level - End

These are absolutely essential to any forthcoming Committee of Enquiry "COI"

Were the Victims of Horrific Abuse let down by the very services that should have been safe guarding there wellbeing?

Is this the hub of the problem regarding the Jersey Establishment and a "COI?"

It is also worth looking back at some of the programmes that were shown back in 2008. These include the excellent Insideout and Panorama.

Was it just easier to move some Abusers on and not put them through the courts?

Just how much did all the Services know? and that includes the States of Jersey Police. You can now see how uncomfortable a "COI" can be. There was a lot of abuse over many decades and are we saying no one new, or contacted the authorities?

The second blind spot in the Gaffer's make-up was that he, with an eagle eye which could pin-point a boy throwing a stone at two hundred yards, who knew every trick his charges could perpetrate, failed to understand that we had both resident and visiting pederasts.

Two gentlemen, always welcomed by The Gaffer and matron, shared a house in the town and asked the boys there for tea on Sundays. More than tea and cakes were involved however. I went to the house only once (the host's aged mother was blindly knitting while it all went on around her) and left quickly through a window when I could not dodge around the rooms any more. Others described how they had made similar getaways. One of these genial householders used to come to our home to play the piano for hymns on a Sunday evening and he later attained high civic office and sat as a magistrate.

- Leslie Thomas, In My Wildest Dreams: An Autobiography

I am not suggesting that any of the current Jersey judiciary is compromised in the Jersey child abuse enquiry to the extent given in the quotation above. What it does show - very clearly I think - is how these kind of people can be - to the outside world - devout and upstanding citizens, the kind of people in authority whom no one - especially those in authority above them - would easily believe to be capable of such crimes.

Similarly, the mention of Wilfred Krichevski as connected with the Haut de La Garenne case has been greeted with considerable derision because he was a notable and respected politician, and therefore - it is assumed - could not be connected with the case. Why someone who was a child at Haut de La Garenne should pluck such a name out of the distant political past, or why someone should have such a grudge against him after so many years, seems to be questions not asked, and make me more inclined to believe that there might well be something in it.

Witnesses are deprived of credibility, and anyone in child care are vouched for by their colleagues, who cannot consider that their own judgement might be in error. More recent cases of this happening was (1) Anton Skinner, a man named in Panorama as being responsible for the child protection services when many examples of appalling abuse were concealed (2) The case of the McGuire's conduct at Blanche Pierre was unacceptable, but - in a report from 1990 - said that "by way of mitigation it was a stressful job...Mrs McGuire agreed to retire voluntarily from running the group-home - and would, instead, come and work in the Family Development Centre." (3) The letter written by Iris Le Feuvre thanking the McGuires on their retirement for their excellent work.

Or take this account by Stuart Syvret which highlights this problem:

I was asking Frank Walker a supplementary question to the effect that when I was H & SS Minister, senior civil servants had lied to me about the case of Simon Bellwood. Did he think it acceptable for civil servants to lie to politicians? Before he could answer, Senator Terry Le Main... interrupted and began shouting that it was "disgraceful" to ask such a question and that "civil servants didn't lie."

It is no wonder that a recent story in the Times notes that:

A furious memorandum from the senior detective in the Jersey child murder and abuse investigation claims that it has been hampered by prosecutors, destroying victims' faith in the justice system...Mr Lenny Harper claims that the island's Attorney-General and his office are held in "total contempt" by victims of child abuse after repeatedly failing to bring offenders to justice. Mr Harper's memo gives warning that potential witnesses are keeping silent because suspects are being freed without charge on apparently spurious grounds.. In another child abuse case, Mr Harper writes, the police experienced delays after sending a file this April to Mr Thomas about Jane and Alan Maguire, who had run a care home. A previous prosecution against the Maguires for assault was dropped for lack of evidence in 1998 by Michael Birt, QC, then the Attorney-General. Mr Birt is now the second most powerful judge as Deputy Bailiff. "Naturally, as I was Attorney-General at the time, I would not sit judicially in any case which may be brought in the future involving the Maguires," he said this week. The Maguires retired to France and no extradition has yet been sought.

Mr Moed, who worked at the home [Haut De La Garenne] as a junior house parent in the 1960s, told of how he tried to raise the alarm about the headmaster Colin Tilbrook's abuse of children - but claims his warnings were ignored.

He said: "I saw him in the dormitory one evening walking with a pillow under his arm. And I asked a colleague who he was and what he was doing and they said 'Oh that's Tilbrook, he carries the pillow so you can't hear the girls screaming'."

Mr Moed was then told that Tilbrook had recently got a 14-year-old girl pregnant and that she'd had to have an abortion. Mr Moed says that he went to the police - but that he was advised not to talk about what he had seen.

Jersey's child protection committee could have done more to prevent abuse in the past, according to its chair June Thoburn, a UK social work expert. Thoburn, who is emeritus professor of social work at East Anglia University, told Community Care the committee, which is similar to a local safeguarding children board, was "too closely linked" to children's services. Thoburn, who was appointed as independent chair of the committee last year by former social services minister Stuart Syvret, said the "same people" had run both the committee and children's services. "Children maltreated in the past did not go to the child protection committee as they did not see it as separate from children's services," she said.Thoburn told Community Care she wanted to give the island's child protection committee "more teeth" by ensuring that it would have an independent chair and a "watchdog role".

The Panorma programme mentions the cruel regime of the Maguires at the care home "Blanche Pierre":

In one home, called Blanche Pierre, the house parents Alan and Jane Maguire subjected children to what a later inquiry called "gross acts of physical and psychological abuse".

The Sprocket website notes that:

Stuart Syvret demanded the files [on Blanche Pierre] and was horrified as he read through the evidence. The extent and detail of abuse was so great, that the Jersey court saying the case against the Maguire's was dropped due to a lack of evidence is just plain bull. If you watched the Panorama program - and you really should – you are already aware of the letter sent to the Maguire's as they left Blanche Pierre thanking them for their 110% commitment and love shown to the children in their care. That 1990 letter of appreciation was authored by Iris Le Feuvre, then President of the then Education Committee.

This is quite revealing from former Police Chief Graham Powers statement to Wiltshire Police. The whole statement can be found here. http://stuartsyvret.blogspot.com/

128. There were also rumours regarding a couple known as the Maguires. Some years before my appointment they had been charged with the physical abuse of children in a States run home but charges had been dropped. The case re-surfaced during Rectangle. On one occasion I received information which caused me to speak to the Attorney General. I told him my information (which had been provided to me in consequence of an overheard conversation in a departure lounge at Gatwick) was that a camera crew and journalist were on their way to Jersey to do some background work on the Maguires. They then intended to travel to France and “doorstep” Mr and Mrs Maguire. The Attorney General told me that they would find Mr Maguire difficult to doorstep as he had been dead for years. He had been seriously ill with cancer when the charges were dropped, and had died not long after. It is fair to say that the Attorney General was not the only person to hold this belief. It was accepted “common knowledge” that Mr Maguire was dead. The appearance not long afterwards of a rather fit and angry looking Mr Maguire on television, came as an interesting surprise. I was later told the Maguires had been working as caretakers in France. Their “caretaking” apparently involved looking after the second homes of some Jersey residents.

This is just the beginning of a look at the Verita TOR'S and the problems that they are causing.

Like I said. When Andrew Williamson conducted his review for the COM in 2007 did he interview people who were part of the Cover-Up?

25 comments:

Anonymous
said...

"Varita TOR's -What is the problem?" The question answers itself. They do not want to expose what really happened and everything they do is a sham. There is no amount of public money and legal fees, no amount of lying and no amount of corruption of the judicial system they won't throw at preventing the thorough and evidence based inquiry the Verita terms would require.

GeeGee, Gorst desperately hopes for a healing process for those who were complicit and those who should be blamed for the decades of abuse. There is no concern for the survivors if the Verita TOR aren't being used.

Anton Skinner let abuse suspects leave without being prosecuted and yet still works for the States of Jersey. This might be the type of problem they are facing with the committee of enquiry and relevant terms of reference. There could be some very serious issues exposed if the abuse wasn't bad enough.

Let's face it - others named in the abuse investigation still work for the States of Jersey, and this I feel is a big part of the reluctance to have robust ToRs.

The Williamson Report was very bland and I would recommend anybody to read Stuart Syvret's blog posting about, and including the report. Indeed it is thought by many that Williamson is an 'our chap', and there is no doubt in my mind that the reviewed ToRs will be equally as bland.

Just copied one comment posted on Stuart's blog which highlighted what most of the other commentor's thought. It does not inspire an awful lot of confidence.

'As an overview, Williamson’s unique perspective delivers some valuable snapshots. However, as a report it is poorly crafted. It is in the form of a rough draft and should be returned to him for finishing. In a well-written report all the conclusions and recommendations emerge smoothly from the facts and their analysis. This report lacks that integrity.

Williamson must better describe the methods of his inquiry. For example, he needs to give the reader more details of how he gathered and handled the facts from his many interviews. What record keeping did he use? Were the interviewees allowed to see these records? Could they make corrections or add comments? Were children in the establishments he visited offered private interviews off the premises, etc. etc..

He should support his opinions by a fair and balanced analysis of the facts and present them to us clearly and candidly. Plausible alternative explanations must be acknowledged. Where opinions are not supported by facts any personal prejudices must be revealed. Williamson has on occasions not adhered to these fundamental strictures on report writing. He sometimes expresses opinions without support and ignores obvious alternative explanations. He introduces extraneous facts without referencing their source. His language is in the main clear, but at critical occasions becomes opaque, and he obviously obfuscates. These failings make him sometimes appear biased. In terms of balance, Williamson should justify why the content of the interviews of the 65 complainants have been given very little weight. He appears prejudiced and dismissive of them. Much more weight has been given to staff opinions and information from other reports.

The effort of detailing and correcting all the botches is part of the job for which Williamson has been paid. Stuart, I don’t think you should do it for him, unless he’s going to mend any wobbly tables that you make.'

If we take apart the brilliant comments Gee Gee has quoted from, above, we have "He should support his opinions by a fair and balanced analysis of the facts and present them to us clearly and candidly. Plausible alternative explanations must be acknowledged. Where opinions are not supported by facts any personal prejudices must be revealed."

That right there is precisely what should be said in a damning indictment of the State Media, as well. Doesn't everyone see the exact same pattern emerging with Williamson? The powers behind the overshadowed face of democracy seem to be working with one single, endlessly repetitive script which deliberately avoids addressing the hard evidence every time.

And here we have what sounds like a fair criticism of the trolligarchy rants on every forum, blog and State Media censored comment section. "Williamson has on occasions not adhered to these fundamental strictures on report writing. He sometimes expresses opinions without support and ignores obvious alternative explanations. He introduces extraneous facts without referencing their source."

Isn't that what the farce blog was created to do?

"His language is in the main clear, but at critical occasions becomes opaque, and he obviously obfuscates. These failings make him sometimes appear biased."

"Sometimes appear biased." ??? Please. We are able to see right through the bias, having had such constant media exposure.

Well then. That's exactly what Jersey needs another example of: a poorly written, expensive "Our Chap" report which duplicates all the other - now factually discredited - award-winning self serving journalism of those hacks who should be hounded out of their media jobs in shame.

But in describing the most disgraceful and frighteningly ominous aspect of Williamson's work, this critic reveals, "In terms of balance, Williamson should justify why the content of the interviews of the 65 complainants have been given very little weight. He appears prejudiced and dismissive of them. Much more weight has been given to staff opinions and information from other reports."

That dismissive and prejudicial attitude shown to the survivors is exactly what got Jersey into the who abuse and cover-up mess in the first place. Giving more weight to staff opinions and information IS THE CRIME HERE, STUPID!!!!

OK, Jersey, lets save taxpayers a whole lot of money here and just re-state what has already been poorly written about the long suffering of ignored abuse victims and then conclude that lessons have been learnt, and it's time to move on. Most people can do that kind of lying for you for free, since no original effort is required and since that is all you will allow anyway.

Rico, Is it just me or have the JEP/Establishment plunged new depths in their despair?

What with John Henwood, Pierre Horsfall, CONSTABLE Len Norman, Hugh Gill (Chef de Police of St Lawrence), Ed Le Quesne (Constable's Officer)and so many more, all saying the Constables should not sit in the States - the Establishment are in dissarray! A desperate editorial. Read all about itJersey Evening Propaganda

This might be one of your most important topics to date. Readers probably have the opportunity to predict very accurately what will happen next with Williamson and the T.O.R. to be approved. It will simply be history repeating itself at great emotional expense to the survivors.

You and your brave fellow bloggers will have a permanent factual record which can stand up to outside scrutiny. In the end, it will be not only the official and final historic record because of the evidence you cite, but it will be the sole reason the endless cycle of abuse denial and cover-up must someday end.

These may seem like dark days but you have already won your case. Their attempt at yet another dishonest "Our Chap Report" will eventually be a nail in their coffin. The facts are pesky things, indeed.

They want to treat the Jersey child abuse victims just like the Staffordshire abuse victims were treated. They pretty much got away with what they did to the Staffordshire abuse victims, they ganged up on us and got us dismissed as human scum. I have had a monumental personal battle in trying to prove to other people as well as myself (because in the end you start believing what other people are telling you) that I am NOT a piece of crap and was not born evil!

I posted a "thisisjersey" comment towards the end of http://ricosorda.blogspot.com/2012_08_01_archive.html and I am pleased to report that the JEP site DID publish it at www.thisisjersey.com/news/letters-to-the-editor/2012/09/05/reduce-numbers-but-retain-the-constables/#comment-186127This good behaviour by the keepers of the JEP "Troll Zoo" lasted for a while but I have just had about 4 recent comments CENSORED.

Am I upset ? -No I am pleased because the more they exhibit this outrageous behaviour the quicker their outdated Opinion Management and Advertising machine becomes less and less relevant in a changing world :-)

One of my posts which they "accidentally lost" was this one which I have recently resubmitted:www.thisisjersey.com/news/letters-to-the-editor/2012/09/05/reduce-numbers-but-retain-the-constables/#comment-186852September 7, 2012 at 1:05 pm I submitted this yesterday afternoon as a reply to "Bandiera" @7 But someone must have 'forgoten' to publish it

**********************************September 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm"Leanne D'Throll" :Well said Bandiera, hit the nail on the head !

The willingness of the deputies to vote to scrap some senatorial seats illustrates how many politicians opinions tend to magically morph to whatever protects their own future. That is precisely why POLITICIANS should NOT have effective control over the Electoral Commission (as Bailhache has achieved) or over adjusting constituencies or constituency boundaries.

Is Senator Lyndon Farnham's grasp of the basic principles of democracy any better than his poor grasp of mathematics ? (8+12+24=42 ! ???)He claims to "deliver a more democratic system" but his suggestions, (apart from further concentrating power on the most parochial and least actually democratic class of member) both include maintaining 3 classes of member in the same chamber.

It may not be immediately apparent - especially to those with a poor grasp of mathematical logicthat having more than one class of member is internationally recognised as being undemocratic because it multiplies the voting power of the majority faction.

If there is a 60% - 40% split in the opinion of the electorate a proper democracy should deliver approximately a 60-40 split in the political factions elected (quite sufficient for effective consensus government). If the members are split into 2 classes (or worse 3 as we have & LF is proposing keeping) a 60% - 40% split in the electorate will likely deliver a 80-20 (or worse) split in representation. This could theoretically happen with a 51%-49% split which is why these multiple class systems are NOT permitted by international electoral organisations.

We need ONE CLASS OF MEMBER.There are pros and cons as to weather this on class of member is voted island wide (like Senators) or on the basis of new constituencies (like Deputies) but complying with the rule of maximum 10% variation in population size.

Changes to the system will be at the perceived cost of some tradition - but is Jersey to be a democracy or a quaint museum.

We know that Bailhache likes the quaint museum idea -no doubt with himself as curator and chief polisher of shiny things.

Having printed the Verita TOR (just incase it was removed) and having carefully read it's content, there simply is no concieveable way it is not robust and structured enough to achieve the desired aim of a full and thorough enquiry. So what is the problem that our Chief Minister?? (or perhaps others) see fit to now commission Mr. Williamson to 'have another' look at it all. This really is the sign of true desperation to avoid the enevitable.

Even on 2nd posting my above comment remains unpublished on the JEP site :-)

Sometimes they take a while thinking about "unpalatable" comments and publish them late with the effect that fewer people get to read them. As with the care leavers justice delayed is justice deniedsimilarly free speech delayed is free speech denied.(not that the two are comparable)

The JEP website has long been a Troll Zoo where the trolls are protected and counter comments are suppressed.

I was intrigued to see how their blogger-prompted attempt at Jersey Perestroika would work out - and guess what Prestitutes this openness and honesty is a painful process:

Just how much free expression of opinion is too much ? - I think we just found out, and it was not a lot !

A few comments will still slip through. Like Trolls the moderators are mixed bunch - the good the bad and the ugly

Those who doubt that the Constables (en mass) are a regressive force - consider their attempt to ban all but "accredited media" from the 2011 Electoral Hustings - UNBELIEVABLE !

Anyone see the JEP editorial ? How very "Jersey" that we see the forces of regression shamelessly protecting each other.